I think this is the case of any musician in his/hers early phase, to focus more on the technology instead of develop your own talent and skill. I will not deny that I am in the same phase, I definitely do not use my current technology which I have access to to full extent.

If what you say is true (and I don't think it is, not the way you mean it) then you need to get out of this phase as quickly as possible. If you think Steve Roach and Robert Rich make their soundscapes by pushing presets you are dead wrong and are heading down a dead end path. Both of those artists make their own sounds from scratch. What you need to learn is the basics of synthesis, how a synthesizer works so you can make your own sounds. I would recommend getting a book or taking a class or maybe finding something on the web before taking another step.

Just about all the soft synths you mentioned can make very good ambient sounds. The reason most of those presets suck for ambient music is because most people who buy those synths don't make this kind of music, so the programmers make sounds that will help sell them. Once you know how synthesizers work you can make all kinds of interesting sounds with them. I've made some really interesting long evolving sounds using Absynth and FM7.

Hardware vs software synths, my take is they are just tools. They both have advantages and disadvantages, I tend to mainly use hardware but I also use software whenever it seems right. I know for a fact that Steve hardly ever uses softsynths, and Robert uses a couple of softsynths but mostly uses his hardware. In the end its really about ideas everything else should be their just to help you realize them. Good luck.

Thanks for your reply, I am surprised to see how many artists it is on this forum. Loren Nerell you are one of my favorite ambient composers without doubt, I like your album "Taksu" immensely, and of course TERRAFORM, it is still one of the deepest album I own, one of my favorite to play at night before sleep.

But otherwise I agree with you, as a musician you should of course focus on the music and not the tools and technology in first hand, however the technology and the tools should not be an limit that will compromise your expression! And yes you told me that I must get out of this phase, in reality I have not really begun this phase of ambient music, right now I focus mostly the collect sounds and different instruments, but I really find it important to find the right conditions before I start. And that I must have an control unit is no joke, it is one of the basic things one must have to create ambient music using VIRTUAL instruments and samplers. There is many kinds of control units I have thinking about, such as an "touch pad" instead of the usual "linear" pitch wheel, with an touch bad I think one could sweep the sounds in an more natural motion. This must be very important when creating Ebb & Flow type of drones if I m not mistaken. Other things I would need, is an proper sustain pedal to the usb keyboard K61, also an volume pedal. Some more interesting control units would be either one more touch pad or some kind of "joystick" that would let me control the sound in the room connected through various impulse reverb plug-ins. The problem seem to be that this control units for instance "Dexter" are very very expensive about 2500EUR.

But I think yes you are right when you talk about the basics of synthesis, even if I own all tools in the world, they will be useless if I do not know how to use them. And yes of course I understand that neither steve roach and Robert Rich using "presets", but how they create these sounds and the techniques they are using are still a big mysteria for me, would certainly be a dream to participate in one of steve roach workshops some time in future.

I think whenever we like it or not, softsynths are the future, for many reasons, with all tools I got including professional studio plug ins and reverbs I see no real reason to switch to hardware.

Of course I know a lot already, as that Reverbs are very important, but I really not sure how to create such deep and warm/cold drones as Roach or R.Rich, so really all information tips and advices are very welcome.

....

Ciao Ekstasis,

Personally I hate sw synths and also hw synths indeed And how say that you need synths to compose "ambient music" ?

But let focus on great artist you mention, and specifically on Robert Rich that I know better on instruments choices and sounds paths: even if I admit Robert often used a top-up technology (I think this is "only" because his perfectionism), the focal point is another one:

The "warm" drones he realized at times of sleep concerts (an unsurpassed beauty until now immo) was realized with a real rudimentary instrumentation ... the sustained lap steel guitar and a home made synt (if I well remember);

So, what is important, is the sound "architecture"/dream/vision (call it in the manner you prefer) you have in your mind; not the tool you have in your hands!

paradoxically, worst the tool, better the final result (this is my joking slogan)

I programmed for a lot of time DX7 (the HARDWARE gear) and even if appreciated the analogical "malfunctions" .. at the end of the day DX produce waves from an "algorithm" (all all digital machines, sw or hw) .. that's bad!

The best source wave, the more complex is the ACOUSTIC wave ... especially when the wave is produced by your body direct interaction with some "instrument" ...

I hope you don't considere this a provocation .. because I'm serious on this topic.

all the bestgiorgio

Hello there Solyaris!

I agree with a lot of what you write

I would not go so far to say that I hate either sw/hw synths, it simply depends on the context, and how you use them. Personally I only use it for midi, the sound I produce in various virtual instruments and studio effects.

It is interesting to hear if it was true that he did produce those warm drones on "SOMNIUM" with the lapsteel guitar. I am a guitarist myself, but I have really not begin to experiment with "drones" yet.

I also bought a an E-Bow to my guitar, which I really like in some ambient music, for instance Asianova/Ure Thrall/Halo manash etc. However, during the last 2 weeks, I have yet not been able to get that Ebow sound I want with my Pod X3, seems hard to get the right sound unfortunately.

I agree with you, to me it is very obvious that the acoustic sound is the superior sound source. The best ambient I know all use electroacoustic sounds i.e acoustic sound with digital/analogue sound manipulations...

Imagination is far more important than whether you're using a soft-synth, hardware synth, field recordings, acoustic instruments or whatever (obviously accordians are completely unacceptable).

Without imagination and a bit of compositional nous, you may make some interesting sounds, but not necessarily some interesting music.

I don't use synths myself, but I don't think that they are the spawn of the Devil. Sound sources are just that - sources. I use primarily electric guitar and field recordings (usually binaural). In my view, processing any sound source is a very interesting (and perhaps somewhat overlooked) part of the whole compositional process, there's much more can be done than just using reverb and delays.

cheersPete

You bring up an important thought...yes...the imagination is of course the basic element in all music...The imagination comes of course before the technology/tools you are using to create.The music should not come or be created as an expression from the technologyThe music should come from the inside within your own imagination, this is the pure form of music.

Ok I thought I should tell you, that I have experimented some more with in Cakewalk Sonar, I getting more and more optimistic, of course control units which would make it possible for me to morph sound in real-time with the human hand and flow would of course take my music yep to another level.

You may want to hear my latest creation, I did manage to get some Somnium-sounding warm drones mixed with space ambient. Remember this is my First attempt to create ambient music, so I am looking forward to any responses and reflections!

I think whenever we like it or not, softsynths are the future, for many reasons, with all tools I got including professional studio plug ins and reverbs I see no real reason to switch to hardware.

The only problem I have have with this thread is that Immersion, you really need to stop making such broad sweeping statements as the ones above.

I have been reading this thread with interrest and there is a nice balance of insight from folks as to the tools being largley un-important to the end result, which I agree to in theory, but not necessarily practice as the instruments you choose "will" have a huge impact on the end result.

Now setting aside that this is ambient music for a second, will a guitarist "most likely" make better music with a cheap $79.00 Harmony Acoustic or if they can afford it...a $2000 Taylor? Which instrument will inspire better playing and learning?

Unfortunatly I honestly feel it is similar with synths, recording gear and so on.

Meaning that you may actually learn more and get better sounds with a real modular, than with a soft synth equivalent, or I can't find one single person in the industry who acctually thinks and belives that the Arturia, NI or GForce recreations sound anywhere close to their real world equivalents. Now this may not matter to an end user or even a listener, which in some cases is sad, but there is a quantifiable difference to the real thing VS software.

Even in plug-ins, every time I have switched to the real thing from a plug-in version the difference has been obvious. Does it stop me from using plug-ins or soft synths, no...but when given the choice I would certainly choose the real thing.

Just my opinion,

I guess my point is that while soft synths and plug-ins are here to stay and quite excellent in many cases, I don't see any proof in the industry that the real gear is becoming exctinct yet. In fact many the Boutique hardware industry is at an all time high...

Paul

Logged

"I liken good ambient to good poetry ... enjoyable, often powerful, and usually unpopular" APK

solyaris

...It is interesting to hear if it was true that he did produce those warm drones on "SOMNIUM" with the lapsteel guitar. I am a guitarist myself, but I have really not begin to experiment with "drones" yet.

...

Only a precisation:

- When I said Robert Rich used "simple" tools I was referring to "sleep concerts" times, around '80ssee Sunyata (1982), Trances (1983), Drones (1983), Inner Landscapes (1987), etc.

- "Somnium" (if you refer to DVD) have been realized around 2001. Here Robert used a lot of recent synth technology, the MOTM, if I'm not wrong some digital post-processing with computer, so "complex" tools....!,

BTW, Somnium is a magnificent (Hypnos records) work of art! Maybe the best Robert's work that show what "slow music" concept is ... and, talking about recording tecniques (the use of DVD for audio) again an outsider!

Personally, I prefer the sonorities of sleep concerts times is a matter of tastes ... To say all the true ... Robert music new paths seem to me less intersting now than in '80s, nevertheless Somnium is probably is more important work all the times.

Paul - you're absolutely correct, better gear does equal better music - I think it matters who's playing it. A person who can make a $79 cheapy guitar sound amazing and full of heart and soul - will utterly shine on a $2,000 guitar. A brilliant musician recording with cheap worn out cables that crackle and short out will obviously not sound so brilliant.

At least in my post - I decided to focus on the 'it isn't the gear!' approach since the original post seems so focused on getting the perfect softsynth. I think I maybe should revise my post a bit to 'it isn't the gear! (*)' with a side note that in actuality - it partially is the gear for exactly the reasons you mentioned. I do think limiting yourself on the amount of gear you take on at one time is a good practice... if you go out and buy 6 synths (hw or sw) - I think you're going to be scrolling through presets for days before ever peeling back a layer and seeing how it works.

New gear can be inspiring - can take you to places you couldn't go before (or at least not easily) - pro quality gear can lift a piece of music up from 'bedroom' to 'studio' quality. Of course - knowing how to use that gear - and knowing that so many pieces play a roll - knowledge and technique being one of the biggies in my opinion.

I definetely like getting new stuff - and am definitely in 'gear lust' mode this summer as I've noted in other threads here and on AtmoWorks. I'm currently after several things:

* a new computer - probably from ADK (which if I recall, Paul, you were the good guy that turned me on to them!)* NI Komplete - I have no softsynths now (unless you count FruityLoops...) - and I've always wanted Reaktor* Several STG Labs modules for my synthesizers.com modular - specifically a Wave Folder!* ...and for my wife to build me a box to put those new modules in!

Getting back to the original reason for the thread - evaluating softsynths...

Why do I want Reaktor? Because it's based around the idea that I can put this bit and that bit together and create new synths and sequencers and drum machines. That a ridiculous number of people have already done that so I have plenty of examples to start from. There's a level of programmability to it. Why Komplete? Because I'd love to get Battery and a couple of the other softsynths - and Komplete has all those at a price that's really nice. I also want the Guitar Rig effects rack that comes with it - I love playing bass - I want to dig into new sounds and effects that I'm not getting from my current setup.

I'm not really interested in a lot of softsynths out there because I have a few hardware synths that I konw really well - I pretty much 'grew up' with most of them (except the modular - it's a bit of a new beast for me...). I love the idea that the hardware synth was built for no other reason than to make those sounds - and that they're old and a little dirty sounding. I want a softsynth for 'newer' sounds - things I haven't messed with yet - for that utterly clean sound. Mixing the two worlds in my music - I can't wait.

I think whenever we like it or not, softsynths are the future, for many reasons, with all tools I got including professional studio plug ins and reverbs I see no real reason to switch to hardware.

The only problem I have have with this thread is that Immersion, you really need to stop making such broad sweeping statements as the ones above.

I have been reading this thread with interrest and there is a nice balance of insight from folks as to the tools being largley un-important to the end result, which I agree to in theory, but not necessarily practice as the instruments you choose "will" have a huge impact on the end result.

Now setting aside that this is ambient music for a second, will a guitarist "most likely" make better music with a cheap $79.00 Harmony Acoustic or if they can afford it...a $2000 Taylor? Which instrument will inspire better playing and learning?

Unfortunatly I honestly feel it is similar with synths, recording gear and so on.

Meaning that you may actually learn more and get better sounds with a real modular, than with a soft synth equivalent, or I can't find one single person in the industry who acctually thinks and belives that the Arturia, NI or GForce recreations sound anywhere close to their real world equivalents. Now this may not matter to an end user or even a listener, which in some cases is sad, but there is a quantifiable difference to the real thing VS software.

Even in plug-ins, every time I have switched to the real thing from a plug-in version the difference has been obvious. Does it stop me from using plug-ins or soft synths, no...but when given the choice I would certainly choose the real thing.

Just my opinion,

I guess my point is that while soft synths and plug-ins are here to stay and quite excellent in many cases, I don't see any proof in the industry that the real gear is becoming exctinct yet. In fact many the Boutique hardware industry is at an all time high...

Paul

Hello Paul, first of all, I am a huge fan of your album "Silence Speaks in Shadow".

Yes you are probably right, that I am not entirely objective, it might be hard also, since it mostly have to do with preference. I think we all talk from our own inner perspective more or less...

I am not saying that this or that is better, if people prefer hardware instead of software it is a choice.However, no one can deny that softsynths or software in general have endless possibilities, there for I see it hardfor hardware equipment to survive in future, however what time span we are talking about is uncertain, I cannot look into the future... but there will always be people that prefer hardware of course...but most people will choose the most inexpensive solution, which most likely will be a software-based solution.

And it is not only that the possibilities are endless, but to use software have in theory many more advantages, especially when it comes to shape and form sounds, that is really the strongest advantage with digital software...

However, you cannot of course use only software to create music, you still need usb/midi keyboard, and various interfaces and control units to communicate with the software. Many do the mistake and think you can get a good human flow in the music by just using the "mouse" , I am strictly against this idea, the mouse you use mostly for editing. The human hand/ear should otherwise be used as much as possible in the creation of music, but again, this is only my opinion, there is nothing right or wrong in music really...everyone should do what feels right to them...

The softsynths you are mention, they are of course not ideal for ambient music always, but..one certainly can create good sounds with those... of course never as good as the acoustic own created sounds..However I think this will improve more and more with time.

About the plugins, I am not sure what plugins you are talking about, but for studio effects etc, their is nothing better then professional plugins, such as everything by "waves" for instance, they are pretty much the studio standard in all professional studios around the globe. But again, this is a matter of preference, there is nothing right or wrong in the world of music.

...It is interesting to hear if it was true that he did produce those warm drones on "SOMNIUM" with the lapsteel guitar. I am a guitarist myself, but I have really not begin to experiment with "drones" yet.

...

Only a precisation:

- When I said Robert Rich used "simple" tools I was referring to "sleep concerts" times, around '80ssee Sunyata (1982), Trances (1983), Drones (1983), Inner Landscapes (1987), etc.

- "Somnium" (if you refer to DVD) have been realized around 2001. Here Robert used a lot of recent synth technology, the MOTM, if I'm not wrong some digital post-processing with computer, so "complex" tools....!,

BTW, Somnium is a magnificent (Hypnos records) work of art! Maybe the best Robert's work that show what "slow music" concept is ... and, talking about recording tecniques (the use of DVD for audio) again an outsider!

Personally, I prefer the sonorities of sleep concerts times is a matter of tastes ... To say all the true ... Robert music new paths seem to me less intersting now than in '80s, nevertheless Somnium is probably is more important work all the times.

giorgio

Ah thanks you told me, yeah to be honest I am not a big fan of his more early works, even though I enjoy them very much the later releases are like night and day, and much more refined in shape & form.

Yes, I am not sure what the key is to the sound on Somnium, of course it must be deeply layered and a lot of studio effects. Also the PVC flute of course an important element...

BTW, I do never listen to the DVD version any more, the FLAC Rerelease version that was released 2007 sound far superior , especially "Part II" that now is without AC3 compression, which had devastating digital artifacts, on the rerelease version it sounds like something totally different, I am still surprised that Robert Rich did agree to release it with AC3 compression..it does not make sense.

Really looking forward to hear the new collaboration album with Faryus, it will go along with the current of somnium and Stalker, according to his blog...might be the best release of this year.

* a new computer - probably from ADK (which if I recall, Paul, you were the good guy that turned me on to them!)* NI Komplete - I have no softsynths now (unless you count FruityLoops...) - and I've always wanted Reaktor* Several STG Labs modules for my synthesizers.com modular - specifically a Wave Folder!* ...and for my wife to build me a box to put those new modules in!

Getting back to the original reason for the thread - evaluating softsynths...

Why do I want Reaktor? Because it's based around the idea that I can put this bit and that bit together and create new synths and sequencers and drum machines. That a ridiculous number of people have already done that so I have plenty of examples to start from. There's a level of programmability to it. Why Komplete? Because I'd love to get Battery and a couple of the other softsynths - and Komplete has all those at a price that's really nice. I also want the Guitar Rig effects rack that comes with it - I love playing bass - I want to dig into new sounds and effects that I'm not getting from my current setup.

I'm not really interested in a lot of softsynths out there because I have a few hardware synths that I konw really well - I pretty much 'grew up' with most of them (except the modular - it's a bit of a new beast for me...). I love the idea that the hardware synth was built for no other reason than to make those sounds - and that they're old and a little dirty sounding. I want a softsynth for 'newer' sounds - things I haven't messed with yet - for that utterly clean sound. Mixing the two worlds in my music - I can't wait.

Anyway - ramble ramble ramble... I'll stop!

John

If you buy a new computer, make sure you wait for the Bloomfield processor released by Intel in september/october, it will be about 50% faster then the fastest core 2 duo.

I own Komplete, I guess you did read my first post...about the the synths..However, I have not tried Reaktor yet for some reason, I have not figured out how to use it yet...but it sounds like an interesting concept indeed...

Logged

solyaris

BTW, I do never listen to the DVD version any more, the FLAC Rerelease version that was released 2007 sound far superior , especially "Part II" that now is without AC3 compression, which had devastating digital artifacts, on the rerelease version it sounds like something totally different, I am still surprised that Robert Rich did agree to release it with AC3 compression..it does not make sense.

Hi Immersion,

I feel good with Somnium DVD despite the compression issue I perfectly know and Robert itself explained in a interview (if I well remember)

I think music listening is related to catch the mystery behind the sonority ...and I feel Somnium full fill this "need" perfectly ... ;-)

The short story of Somnium is that Robert was aware that compromises were involved in fitting Somnium onto a single continuous disc, but at the time of that release there were no other alternatives. In 2000 when we were preparing this for release, there was no such thing as a 1gb .FLAC download, or if there was, nobody would have had the bandwidth to download it. At that time, DVD authoring was a difficult thing, and there was no better alternative. In fact, at the time of release many people did not have DVD players yet, and sales were slower at first than they were later.

If it hadn't been possible to release Somnium in the format we chose, it would have been a 6 CD set instead, but that would have only worked as a "sleep concert" experience for those individuals with CD changers.

Who knows, maybe someday there will be a nearly-lossless dual-layer DVD version, or a BluRay uncompressed version, or who knows what?

From what I know, the Somnium first press are out of print, the reprint will once again be an dvd-5 single layer disc with AC3 Compression. For this repress he of course wanted DVD-9 Dual layer without any AC3 compression. However, that would be a lot more expensive to produce. Well I am just really happy that I got the Flac version, but I am sorry for the people who have not heard the Flac version, and associate Somnium with the dvd version.

Right, there WERE alternatives for this 2008 repressing, but the problem is that most people who wanted to hear Somnium already have a copy, so we could not justify the much-higher costs of creating a new dual-layer master, plus pressing dual-layer discs, considering that we don't sell terribly many copies now that Somnium has been released for 7-8 years already.

We could justify the expense of just pressing another 1,000 DVDs exactly like the original version, but it would have been hard to justify triple the expense of a new, improved version. Of course, I would not rule out some kind of superior edition at some time in the future... who knows?

Right, there WERE alternatives for this 2008 repressing, but the problem is that most people who wanted to hear Somnium already have a copy, so we could not justify the much-higher costs of creating a new dual-layer master, plus pressing dual-layer discs, considering that we don't sell terribly many copies now that Somnium has been released for 7-8 years already.

We could justify the expense of just pressing another 1,000 DVDs exactly like the original version, but it would have been hard to justify triple the expense of a new, improved version. Of course, I would not rule out some kind of superior edition at some time in the future... who knows?

Thanks for the info, yeah I understand that it will be hard to make any kind of profit an an dual layer dvd release. The Alternative is of course to sell them at a higher price, I am sure many including myself would have bought it, it is certainly worth it.

IF you still must use dvd-5, you should consider to look over if there exist any better compression algorithms then the Old AC3, For instance I know most dvd players today support mp3 playback. I myself got Somnium encoded with the best codec around Lame 3.97 (Final release) using the V0 preset, and the sound is really transparent, it is not easy to hear the difference at all, you need very good headphones or speakers for that.

In fact, I don't think I would trust an electronic musician who had never owned a keyboard synth!

Software just gives such a nice learning environment before deciding to make a purchase of real hardware. I think I've learned a lot from NI Massive and especially Reason with it's patching elements for sound and modulations. Now I am moving onto buy either an Access Virus TI Desktop or a TI Snow, though with the Total Integration element I may feel like I am still living somewhat in a soft synth world. But the sounds I hope will be more lush and luxurious.

I really think hardware and software synths are both 'real' instruments... just as much as a trumpet is an instrument or a jar of strawberry jelly with a mic. It's all in what someone does with the intruments and what tools and interfaces make sense.

For me - I prefer physical knobs and sliders and keys on synths and gadgets. I prefer my piano and bass and the feeling I get when I play them. When I finally get a good control surface for my computer - I think I'll start falling in love with it as an instrument.

But that's just personal preference.

I don't think a vintage hardware synth is any more real than a soft synth.

I do think there are lots of differences between them, both tangible and intangible. For instance - a hardware synth is going to have pieces, parts, diodes, capacitors, jacks, cables, etc... all adding little bits of imperfection to them. My Prophet 600 needs repaired because it's so crackly and nasty sounding at times - but then again - it is what it is and that's part of the charm. A software emulation couldn't capture that charm even though it will technically be more perfect than the original. Neither is more real than the other - it's what you like to work with.